1178:
discrimination against these kinds of relationships), and as such their categorization between our modern terms such as "open marriage", "swinging" and "polyamory" cannot be determined, that no list article recording them should be kept. Is there a classification that can be agreed upon that encompasses all these relationships, or are they to be relegated to the trash because there classification cannot be determined? While someone reading or researching the specific person would read about the relationship on their article (if it is already reported), someone who wants to read up on or research those in consensual relationships involving three or more persons, (be they under whatever term - polyamorous relationships, open marriage, etc.) will have to either know who to look for or be adept at searching to find out about such relationships. What disturbs me is what is someone who identifies with such relationships, and is trying to research or find those who were in such histories, will be unable to or have a more difficult time in finding those involved. Historically, those practicing alternative sexualities had their histories hidden and had few role models to look up-to. I am not trying to debate values here - but I am stating that their exists significant historical precedence against such relationships and that sensitivity and consideration towards the historical discrimination and repression of these histories must be a consideration here. I am more than open to an alternative term being suggested, or diving up the content between two or more articles (such as List of
Polyamorists and the list of those in an open relationship), based on the best evidence. Content still in dispute could be left on the discussion page(s) until better evidence can be found for the inclusion in one or the other article.
1036:
the article, where I might otherwise have a case. I also now have an additional concern - you originally stated one thing (that only living persons regarded a direct statement claiming they were polyamorous, and are now holding that status to the dead - when the term is also a recent creation. In turn, you then make accusations against me that I have adding back people improperly, when I am confused as to what standard I am to hold the references to. In addition, my original concerns regarding the term and its limited history need to be addressed.
116:
95:
126:
1710:
the general population; by contrast, people who at some point have even vaguely fulfilled the requirements to experience polyamory has been estimated at <1%. The few poly-centric real-world events are scattered quite thinly — and almost entirely confined to major urban centers, thus excluding (say) a single suburban mother holding down two part-time jobs: she might be in "the community of interest" while highly unable to participate in "the community of place" or even "of practice," so is she part of "the poly community" or not?
1004:
their histories hidden. The term polyamory is fairly new and used to describe a wide range of consenting relationships amongst multiple people, that historically have fallen under other (and false) descriptions, such as affairs. The policy references homosexuality and 'closeted gays' - but nothing with regards to polyamory. Someone like Warren Buffet and Tilda
Swinton are clearly not hiding their relationships and their activities. How can I get this clarified, or if no clarification exists, get this dispute resolved?
602:, but that information needs to be worked into the individual articles first; I don't have the time or knowledge to take that on. Several of them documented multiple partners but didn't make it clear whether everybody involved was amenable to this. Re. Victoria Woodhull, note that 'free love' in her era didn't necessarily mean multiple partners; it could mean merely the freedom to divorce and remarry. I think her listing here is a mistake so I've removed it.
313:
288:
380:
359:
218:
200:
64:
1134:
how these relationships can be recorded and reported properly on
Knowledge (XXG). The facts that they all had consensual relationships with multiple parties is not in dispute - the use of the term polyamory is. Making a list entitled "List of Consensual relationships involving multiple individuals" seems a bit over the top and polyamory is the best term to describe these relationships.
1537:, I think a case can be made to add people to this list. I have therefore added Nelson and the Hamiltons, the three of whom owned a house together, and between the three of which letters were sent more-or-less acknowledging the fait accompli that the marriage was in fact a three-way. If more polyamorists can be added on suitable evidence, great.
583:
Elizabeth
Marston, E. Nesbit, Vita Sackville-West, Harold Nicolson, Bloomsbury Group, Nan Wise. (Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart and Oberon Zell-Ravenheart were already listed.) In Heinlein's case, the article doesn't discuss the poly elements of his personal life, but his fiction alone should be sufficient grounds for including.
228:
1807:
It's basically impossible for someone to have "been polyamorous" before the invention of the concept. As such creation was a sort of on-the-fly situation, an approximation of the concept's birth would substitute, so 1990. (I've never seen the argument made that "polyamory" was at all intended in some
1709:
There's even less "poly community" than "LGBTQ community": there's certainly no official Poly Pride Day, and few practicing polyfolk will march in any parade much less protest in front of City Hall. As well, LGBTQ has been variously estimated to (depending how you define the terms) include 10%-25% of
1529:
I believe in principle that this list should be expanded with more diverse people known to be poly, even if the term "polyamory" was not in use at the time. This list unfortunately skews towards activist atheists, activist feminists, activist "LGBT community" members (there's a difference in my view
1003:
Never mind. I found it, but it is does not answer my question regarding how specific a self-assertion must be (relating to a specific term, rather that a statement that essentially says the same thing). I ask for respect here, as minority sexualities have historically been discriminated against and
673:
Warren Buffet was only separated, not in a relationship with both women. He didn't marry his second wife until his first died. His first wife, Susan, left the family home in Omaha in the late 1970’s, after raising the couple’s three children, and moved to San
Francisco. He married again in 2006. Dave
582:
Okay, I've gone through all the people listed on this page. Added the following, because the existing article already explained the poly connection: Natalie Barney, Simone de
Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Paxus Calta, Amelia Earhart, Robert A. Heinlein, Patricia Ireland, Alfred Kinsey, William Marston,
545:
I thought this might work better as a category also. But, as I noticed there were several persons on the list who haven't any wikipedia article (and nonetheless may be regarded as famous), I decided to make a list rather than a category. A category would be much easier to manage and more rigorously
516:
None of these are cited. Just because Amelia
Earhart didn't say that she would require her husband to remain faithful to her doesn't necessarily mean she was polyamorous. How, for instance, was Percy Bysshe Shelley polyamorous? It's not common knowledge and his Knowledge (XXG) article says nothing
1875:
In like manner, being inarguably polyamorous DOES NOT mean that the relationship is open. Since there is absolutely no verifiable evidence, we're stuck with popular conceptions and media reports, which heavily spread the belief that MOST polyamorous people are involved in a three-person CLOSED triad
1201:
sourcing. In no case may we evaluate anything. We can only categorize as existing reliable third-party sources categorize. We are here to report on what sources say, not to help "someone who wants to read up on or research those in consensual relationships involving three or more persons". There are
1161:
identifies as "gay". He has reportedly had relationships with women, but he does not identify as "bisexual" and we cannot call him that. That same applies here. You don't know whether the subject thought of themselves as cheating, swinging, being open, loving, just in it for the sex, or whatnot. And
1035:
I am deeply confused and hurt by your allegations and attitudes towards me. I am a well-meaning contributor who has spend hours of my time trying to improve this article. You are using your privileged status and knowledge of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies to manipulate and control the debate regarding
988:
Please provide a link to
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on sexuality requiring a directly statement of a particular word for someone living (in this case, polyamory), rather than a statement that essential says the same thing (this is with regards to Tilda Swinton and Warren Buffet interview references).
586:
I did *not* add the following, because IMHO their articles didn't contain enough to justify categorisation: Olga
Kosakiewicz, David Bowie, Warren Buffett, Dora Carrington, Robert Crumb, Aline Kominsky, Penn Jillette, Augustus John, Anais Nin, Eric S. Raymond, Erwin Schrödinger, Percy Shelley, Lytton
1666:
Not all men who sexually express themselves primarily with other men identify themselves as "gay," and not all gay-identified men see themselves as part of "the gay community" in any real sense. Not everyone who's queer-identified wants to be associated with (much less associate with) everyone else
1133:
You were not clear before, even if you felt you were. I understand your position now, but I feel that their still existing a dispute regarding the term and how to report on those who have had consensual relationships with multiple parties. I am not trying to draw conclusions - I just want to know
1264:
Likewise, I would dispute that anyone could have been polyamorous unwillingly. Bad enough they're being pronounced "poly" even though they died before the term was invented (let alone the tenets shored up), but names are added willy-nilly to these lists with little effort to determine whether they
1789:
Merely because one person acts in a polyamorous manner DOES NOT mean that all that person's sexual/emotional connections (however deep) are "poly," and further DOES NOT mean that it's somehow "a poly relationship," and DOES NOT mean that everyone connected to a nonmonogamous person is therefore
1177:
As you can see in the discussion page regarding the German wikipedia article on Polyamory, I expressed the same concern about many on their list that I did not include because the sources were inadequate. What I am hearing, is because historically these terms did not exist (because of historic
1576:. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short,
1939:(not merely nonmonogamous) or the list entry must point to a credible outside source that makes such a statement. In either case, particularly due to BLP policy, the cited source needs to be highly objective, rather than some "pro-poly" publication or an opinion piece or a blog.
1162:
you can't call a person poly simply because they allowed their partner to practice polyamory. There are certainly relationships in which one partner is poly, the other(s) are monogamous. Who are you to decide what people's behavior means about their thinking and philosophy?
1153:, and only the person involved can know whether they are being poly or doing something else. The relationships belong in the articles about the subjects. We can only call the subject poly if they have so self-identified or been so identified if deceased. The same applies to
1836:
In order for someone to be (or have been) polyamorous, they must at some point have figuratively stood up and said "I am polyamorous." Lacking that, they must have claimed to accept (if not willingly and actively perform) the tenets and practices that define the concept
1844:
An open relationship IS NOT THE SAME AS a polyamorous relationship. A couple can be "open" with one or both actively cheating, and an agreement (tacit or explicit) to "ignore" it so long as the home situation continues along satisfactorily, what is sometimes called a
1260:
Not everyone who has enjoyed sex with someone of their own gender is therefore homosexual, and I know there are at least a few homosexuals who don't embrace the term "gay." And not every group marriage, triad, threesome, and affair is evidence of polyamory.
1530:
between being LGBT, as in lesbian, gay, bi, or trans, using the common definition of those words, and "the LGBT community" as in the more vocal people who attend Pride parades and such; one needn't attend a Pride parade to be bisexual, for example).
1618:, which I haven't (yet) read. While we'd probably describe the situation as "polyamorous" if it existed today, the term wouldn't have been in contemporary use; is the phrased used in the book, or in a reliable commentary on the book?
567:
already exists, so I'll just add some comments to the category description and add the relevant articles to that. If people don't have articles of their own yet, that can be resolved by (somebody other than me ;-) writing them.
1117:
The dead do not need to self-identify. But they do need to be identified by a citation to an independent third-party researcher who specifically concludes that they were polyamorous. We do not draw conclusions, we report them.
1790:
nonmonogamous, let alone "poly." For instance, one person could have two dozen recurrent intimate partners, NONE of whom wants/claims to be poly, and are each therefore fundamentally monogamous in belief and practice, simply
1079:
I am sincerely sorry that you are hurt, but you do not seem to be listening or trying to understand what the problem with your edits is. I have explained very clearly multiple times, but you seem to have some sort of
1819:
An analogy: Nobody could have "been a Scientologist" before 1952, even if she had been around Hubbard since he created Dianetics (1930s, maybe earlier) and remained highly placed in CoS for the rest of her
531:
and the archive listed there; this article was split off from that page. My preference would be to convert the whole thing to a category and shift the onus for citation back onto individual people's pages.
1084:
to identify people with polyamory who have not either so identified themselves or been identified by reliable sources. Your goals appear to be incompatible with the goals of Knowledge (XXG), which is to
1797:
There's no indication that everyone who acts in a clearly polyamorous manner WANTS to "join the club," so foisting the label on them is not only highly questionable, but (if they are living) is a clear
1572:
Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement
1533:
In any case, when evidence can be found that someone was polyamorous despite the word not existing at the time, or even if they are usually treated as "lovers" or "mistress" but clear evidence is that
1627:
I will say, in regards to the original request, that the no-synthesis policy can be harder to apply when a modern term has no precise historical equivalent and modern research is thin on the ground.
1055:. For a living person, they must call themselves polyamorous. That's really simple. A person has to identify with the term. Or in the case of a deceased person, must be identified with the term by a
1748:
didn't exist before World War II, and arguably not until its early codification the mid-'50s.) Since we don't know precisely when "poly theory" began to gel, we have the coining of the word
1727:
that the subject "is polyamorous" AND gives a solid source for that factoid, it ain't gonna fly. And if the person is alive, then I'd say to err on the safe side of BLP. Editing WILL happen.
182:
605:
People who don't have their own English-language Knowledge (XXG) article, so couldn't be categorised: CT Butler, Olive Byrne, Kevin C Mason, Robyn Trask, Vincent M. Wales, Dieter Wedel. --
827:
The following individuals were removed from the list because of inadequate sources. If you come across any sources that could possibly support their inclusion, please post them here.
2130:
172:
43:
2135:
1149:
Sorry, no. There are people who have multiple relationships and do not consider themselves poly. Some call what they do "open marriage", some call it "swinging". Poly requires
2033:— and even that is according only to a 2012 book. (Supporting the rights of lesbians doesn't make him a lesbian.) The Independent article is from 2009, so aging badly per BLP.
813:, British Lord should be on the list. I have found conflicting sources, some labelling it as an affair, and some as poly. At this point, I am leaning towards removing it.
498:, thirty years down the track, is another question - but it would probably make more sense to base this list on "ever poly" rather than require "always poly" or "now poly". --
148:
2125:
768:
Why not just move or merge this article into the article titled "People in open relationships" or the "People in open marriages" article? They're the exact same thing.
1471:
1467:
1453:
1337:
1333:
1319:
319:
293:
508:
Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden should be added in light of the extensive timeline of their relationship and the simultaneous marriages they managed to keep up. -Dione
139:
100:
48:
2004:
content (and uncited at that). She may be presently polyamorous, or have put that nonsense behind her; until something CURRENT is cited, I'm going to go with BLP.
2120:
1851:(don't ask, don't tell) agreement; there is no commitment to mention their encoupled status to their hookups, therefore (FFI see below) it's not polyamory,
686:
as a polyamorist. That is, we cannot base inclusion in this list on observation or third-party charaterization, but only the subject's own identification.
31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
1097:
for misidentifying people with a label they do not choose to identify themselves with. Are you going to volunteer yourself as the responsible party if
899:
246:
23:
1808:
evolutionary manner, though I would truly enjoy reading any contemporaneous account.) Dragging up some corpse in order to paste on a label is clearly
2000:
does not mention polyamory (and says she was "last active 11 years ago"). Her Revolvy page is not only outdated, but entirely a regurgitation of the
434:
2145:
1740:
Moreover, as I state elsewhere, nobody was "poly" before the concept was created — if "they were doing something similar" is being claimed, then
250:
1535:
more than two people intimately associated, bedded, or co-habited for an extended length of time, with the knowledge and consent of all involved
2140:
640:
Where can we get the information we need about these people. Alot of very famous people have been in open marriages and were swingers, or such.
1016:. To quote the policy against original research, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not
2155:
810:
424:
775:
245:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
2160:
1544:
842:
715:
463:
400:
1960:
The following deserve to be immediately cut for various vioations, but will be blanked and left awhile in hopes someone can fix them.
254:
241:
205:
2150:
1449:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1315:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
919:
Barbara M. Foster, Michael Foster, Letha Hadady, Three in Love: Menages a Trois from Ancient to Modern Times, Iuniverse Inc, 2000,
1904:
As with so many W'pedia List pages, the best argument for the continued existence of this is that it's an excellent means to keep
1231:
1415:
1828:
75:
923:
1996:
date from 2010 or 2009. Her "official website" no longer exists (I've cut the link). Her Facebook page is a dead shell. Her
396:
392:
387:
364:
709:
1425:
1935:
Each name on this list must point to a Knowledge (XXG) article. Either that article must clearly state the person was/is
1514:
1380:
1305:
1227:
850:
1982:
1981:, not polyamorous, and they quote her or her partners. Though the latter is (arguably) a subset of the former, it is
790:
They are not the same thing. Polyamory is a broader term that describes both polyfidelity and open relationships.
1745:
1632:
1607:
1744:
to reflect that. (Though nonmonogamy and adultery have been around at least as long as marriage, the fact is that
32:
1470:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1336:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
456:
Shouldn't Hugh Hefner be on this list? He's one of the first people I think of when this word/subject come up.
779:
81:
1611:
1548:
1505:
1407:
1371:
1297:
1059:. Knowledge (XXG) editors may not make the determination themselves. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, it
719:
645:
467:
1540:
771:
459:
324:
298:
1403:
1183:
1139:
1041:
994:
818:
795:
754:
131:
733:
are debatable (as he own tried non-monogamy briefly after his wife had a child from another man). Also,
2102:
1945:
1925:
1766:
1693:
1685:
1628:
1489:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1477:
1355:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1343:
1271:
1239:
147:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1406:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1296:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
710:
http://de.wikipedia.org/Polyamory#Bekannte_in_einvernehmlichen_mehrfachen_Beziehungen_lebende_Personen
2047:
1859:
1399:
1289:
42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
1827:
somehow weasels this in. If so, then the instant that claim is made, the article's name will become
125:
115:
94:
2018:
1847:
846:
742:
714:
is a list of many Persons who practiced open relationships, the mayority cited with some source. --
971:
679:
1689:
1589:
1437:
641:
595:
564:
46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
1474:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1340:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
39:
1490:
1356:
1179:
1135:
1037:
990:
920:
814:
791:
750:
2098:
1941:
1921:
1762:
1416:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150219070801/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737
1267:
1255:
not every person who was at some point in their life nonmonogamous was therefore polyamorous
1235:
1158:
934:
Wells, H. G. Experiment in Autobiography (1934), "I have loved several people very deeply".
730:
587:
Strachey, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Karlheinz Stockhausen, David Rovics, Victoria Woodhull.
518:
233:
1497:
1363:
963:
868:
655:
624:
2026:
1207:
1202:
plenty of polyamory sites out there that do just that. It's not our job or goal to do so.
1167:
1123:
1106:
1068:
1025:
979:
876:
729:
I took a look at the German list. The vast majority seem legitimate. Some however, like
691:
659:
628:
144:
1560:
1056:
1020:
supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." (emphasis in original).
1013:
959:
948:
620:
2056:
2001:
1993:
1791:
1456:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1426:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110728152039/http://uupa.org/Sermons/FaithfuPolyamory.htm
1322:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
867:
Actually, keeping living people on a list on the talk page is also not permitted under
599:
547:
528:
481:
1496:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1463:
1362:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1329:
1009:
952:
2114:
2080:
2010:
1760:
1971, and make the case that NOBODY before 1971 could possibly have been polyamorous.
1585:
1098:
734:
1752:
in 1990. If we stretch the concept horribly, I could (uncomfortably) point out that
1419:
1306:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120717000213/http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/view.htm
2089:
1978:
1974:
1897:
835:
831:
746:
738:
2009:
Exactly NONE of the cited sources (including the External Links) corroborate that
1063:
as described in reliable secondary sources, it does not do the research itself.
1965:
1603:
1443:
856:
606:
569:
533:
499:
2106:
1949:
1929:
1770:
1636:
1593:
1552:
1519:
1429:
1385:
1275:
1243:
1211:
1187:
1171:
1143:
1127:
1110:
1072:
1045:
1029:
998:
983:
880:
822:
799:
783:
758:
723:
695:
665:
649:
634:
609:
572:
550:
536:
521:
502:
484:
471:
312:
287:
217:
199:
2038:
1462:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1328:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1203:
1163:
1119:
1102:
1064:
1021:
975:
872:
687:
491:
223:
121:
1916:
1893:
1838:
1681:
1309:
947:
I've updated the criteria section because it appeared to condone the use of
379:
358:
1864:
strong, deep, close and true loving, romantic, and/or intimate relationship
1680:
Then, there's the not-insignificant begged question of w.t.f. "community":
974:. The criteria have been modified so as to make these requirements clear.
1912:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1265:
did indeed attempt to live up to something closely akin to those tenets.
494:
and from it looks as if she's said as much in print. Whether he's poly
1197:
they may be included in this list. There is however no alternative to
1997:
1987:
for an editor to paste on a label the subjects have actively avoided.
1908:
1905:
1852:
951:
by examining a subject's relationships rather than what WIkipedia's
1823:
The argument will likely be made that previous terminology such as
682:, we should not include living people unless we have a citation to
253:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
1915:
from clogging up the actual, useful, credible information — here,
962:
that explicitly identifies the subject as "polyamorous". Further,
1723:
Okay so back to this list. Basically, unless the W'pedia article
1193:
For deceased people, new research may classify a person as poly,
1650:
598:, because adequate cites have already been provided here or on
764:
Merge article into People in open marriages/open relationships
57:
38:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
15:
480:
Is anyone able to find any public citation for David Bowie?
989:
The above links do not clarify or support your assertions.
749:, writer and Beatrice Branch + (still going over the list)
2083:? No citation, unsupported in article, so another BLP vio.
1410:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1300:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
399:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1653:, but find my conclusions heading the opposite direction.
619:
I've removed all unsourced people from the list and, per
966:
should not be in this list based on anything other than
1841:. Lacking even that, the individual IS NOT polyamorous.
1614:? The information on them is sourced to a single book,
1293:
2041:
was poly as of 2000. Update (again per BLP) is vital.
2046:
Nothing, not even her WP article, substantiate that
2021:
died more than two decades before polyamory existed.
334:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Family and relationships
143:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1466:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1332:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
627:, we should not add anything without a citation. --
517:
of the sort. The whole thing needs to be cited.---
1232:Category talk:Polyamorous people#Category and list
527:FWIW, a lot of the citation discussion is over at
157:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
1831:; lacking that, please don't even make the claim.
1567:what is being claimed. We cannot use implication.
1420:http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737
900:"Lord Bath's 'wifelets' come to blows at bedtime"
1742:the page's title needs to be changed immediately
1101:objects to the use of the term to describe him?
322:, a project which is currently considered to be
1222:There is a discussion over who belongs in this
2131:Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
1602:On this basis, is there a basis for including
1452:This message was posted before February 2018.
1318:This message was posted before February 2018.
702:List of people and citations in German article
1444:http://www.transsexual.org/Tsbio.htmlJennifer
838:, writers associated with the Beat Generation
490:His ex Angie talks about their open marriage
477:Penn from Penn and Teller needs to be added.
337:Template:WikiProject Family and relationships
8:
1430:http://uupa.org/Sermons/FaithfuPolyamory.htm
2136:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
391:, an attempt to structure and organize all
160:Template:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
2126:List-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
1868:full knowledge and consent of all involved
1785:Some doubts about "lists of poly people."
1649:I largely agree with the premises made by
1538:
1288:I have just modified one external link on
1053:must directly call the subject polyamorous
353:
282:
194:
89:
63:
61:
1876:(almost always FMF). Portrayals are more
1398:I have just modified 2 external links on
1310:http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/view.htm
1829:List of responsibly nonmonogamous people
395:. If you wish to help, please visit the
2092:DOES NOT even use the word "polyamory."
891:
658:on this topic to build this article. --
355:
284:
196:
91:
811:Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath
263:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography
7:
1866:," and in DADT there's no inherent "
1157:sexual categorization. For example,
385:This article is within the scope of
320:WikiProject Family and relationships
318:This article is within the scope of
239:This article is within the scope of
137:This article is within the scope of
2121:Biography articles of living people
2088:Oddly enough, the cited source for
1968:and the Marstons predate polyamory.
958:requires, which is a citation to a
80:It is of interest to the following
2096:Please correct what you can, ASAP.
1896:), a highly circumscribed form of
1616:Wonder Woman: The Complete History
140:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
14:
2031:from a social justice perspective
1563:. Read the link. The source must
1402:. Please take a moment to review
1292:. Please take a moment to review
1061:reports on the research of others
409:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lists
340:Family and relationships articles
1862:, in casual hookups there's no "
378:
357:
311:
286:
226:
216:
198:
124:
114:
93:
62:
21:This article must adhere to the
429:This article has been rated as
177:This article has been rated as
163:Sexology and sexuality articles
2146:WikiProject Biography articles
2059:is an interview where she says
266:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
2141:List-Class biography articles
1212:07:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1188:07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1172:06:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1144:06:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1128:06:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1111:06:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1073:06:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1046:06:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1030:06:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
1008:It is part and parcel of our
999:05:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
984:00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
881:05:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
823:06:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
800:06:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
759:06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
706:In the German article, here:
696:23:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
529:Talk:Polyamory#Listing_people
472:18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
393:list pages on Knowledge (XXG)
151:and see a list of open tasks.
24:biographies of living persons
2156:Low-importance List articles
251:contribute to the discussion
1973:All cited sources say that
1880:(extending the premises of
1520:13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
1228:Category:Polyamorous people
784:06:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
724:15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
36:must be removed immediately
2177:
2161:WikiProject Lists articles
2075:so it's clearly a BLP vio.
2050:has ever been polyamorous.
1998:listing for voiceover work
1950:02:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
1930:14:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
1858:Per the stated premise of
1771:16:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
1637:20:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
1608:Elizabeth Holloway Marston
1594:17:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
1553:05:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
1483:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1395:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1349:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1285:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
943:Update to criteria section
654:We should not use our own
503:10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
485:05:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
435:project's importance scale
412:Template:WikiProject Lists
183:project's importance scale
1878:marriage with more people
1244:01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
428:
373:
306:
211:
176:
109:
88:
2151:List-Class List articles
1992:All cited sources about
1386:22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
666:12:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
650:09:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
635:18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
610:16:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
573:14:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
551:13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
537:06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
522:05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
331:Family and relationships
294:Family and relationships
2107:17:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
1825:responsible nonmonogamy
1667:who's queer-identified.
1612:William Moulton Marston
1391:External links modified
1281:External links modified
1276:07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
1018:directly and explicitly
615:Citations are mandatory
2068:We are not polyamorous
2055:The only citation for
1756:was coined by Kerista
1582:
1525:Expansion of this list
154:Sexology and sexuality
132:Human sexuality portal
101:Sexology and sexuality
70:This article is rated
1694:Community of interest
1686:Community of practice
1570:
902:. The Age. 2011-06-11
741:, Hubert Bland , and
594:eventually end up in
590:Quite a few of these
242:WikiProject Biography
74:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
2048:Jennifer Diane Reitz
1860:List of polyamorists
1578:stick to the sources
1464:regular verification
1400:List of polyamorists
1330:regular verification
1290:List of polyamorists
1010:verifiability policy
953:verifiability policy
2029:SUPPORTS polyamory
2019:Alexandra Kollontai
1964:See previous post:
1454:After February 2018
1320:After February 2018
1253:Look, it's simple:
1199:direct and explicit
968:self-identification
853:, British diplomat
847:Emma, Lady Hamilton
809:I am not sure if:
743:George Bernard Shaw
684:self-identification
1956:slated for removal
1690:Community of place
1508:InternetArchiveBot
1459:InternetArchiveBot
1374:InternetArchiveBot
1325:InternetArchiveBot
1093:. Knowledge (XXG)
805:People on the list
596:Category:Polyamory
565:Category:Polyamory
269:biography articles
76:content assessment
1814:original research
1781:lists? well... no
1725:specifically says
1561:original research
1555:
1543:comment added by
1484:
1350:
1014:original research
949:original research
774:comment added by
663:
656:original research
632:
462:comment added by
449:
448:
445:
444:
441:
440:
388:WikiProject Lists
352:
351:
348:
347:
281:
280:
277:
276:
193:
192:
189:
188:
56:
55:
2168:
2013:was polyamorous.
1629:NewEnglandYankee
1565:explicitly state
1518:
1509:
1482:
1481:
1460:
1441:
1384:
1375:
1348:
1347:
1326:
1159:Samuel R. Delany
935:
932:
926:
917:
911:
910:
908:
907:
896:
851:William Hamilton
786:
731:Bertrand Russell
661:
630:
474:
417:
416:
413:
410:
407:
382:
375:
374:
369:
361:
354:
342:
341:
338:
335:
332:
315:
308:
307:
302:
290:
283:
271:
270:
267:
264:
261:
247:join the project
236:
234:Biography portal
231:
230:
229:
220:
213:
212:
202:
195:
165:
164:
161:
158:
155:
134:
129:
128:
118:
111:
110:
105:
97:
90:
73:
67:
66:
65:
58:
44:this noticeboard
16:
2176:
2175:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2111:
2110:
2027:Graham Nicholls
1958:
1783:
1527:
1512:
1507:
1475:
1468:have permission
1458:
1435:
1408:this simple FaQ
1393:
1378:
1373:
1341:
1334:have permission
1324:
1298:this simple FaQ
1283:
1251:
1220:
1057:reliable source
1051:The references
1012:. We do not do
970:as required by
960:reliable source
945:
940:
939:
938:
933:
929:
918:
914:
905:
903:
898:
897:
893:
807:
769:
766:
704:
617:
514:
457:
454:
414:
411:
408:
405:
404:
367:
339:
336:
333:
330:
329:
296:
268:
265:
262:
259:
258:
232:
227:
225:
162:
159:
156:
153:
152:
145:human sexuality
130:
123:
103:
71:
12:
11:
5:
2174:
2172:
2164:
2163:
2158:
2153:
2148:
2143:
2138:
2133:
2128:
2123:
2113:
2112:
2097:
2094:
2093:
2085:
2084:
2077:
2076:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2061:
2060:
2057:Caitlin Stasey
2052:
2051:
2043:
2042:
2035:
2034:
2023:
2022:
2015:
2014:
2006:
2005:
2002:Terisa Greenan
1994:Terisa Greenan
1989:
1988:
1979:polyfidelitous
1970:
1969:
1957:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1940:
1920:
1902:
1901:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1842:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1821:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1792:non-possessive
1782:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1761:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1597:
1596:
1569:
1568:
1526:
1523:
1502:
1501:
1494:
1447:
1446:
1432:
1424:Added archive
1422:
1414:Added archive
1392:
1389:
1368:
1367:
1360:
1313:
1312:
1304:Added archive
1282:
1279:
1266:
1250:
1247:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1175:
1174:
1131:
1130:
1114:
1113:
1076:
1075:
1033:
1032:
944:
941:
937:
936:
927:
912:
890:
889:
885:
884:
883:
863:
861:
860:
854:
843:Horatio Nelson
839:
806:
803:
789:
776:71.185.247.198
765:
762:
703:
700:
699:
698:
671:
670:
669:
668:
616:
613:
600:Talk:Polyamory
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
556:
555:
554:
553:
540:
539:
513:
510:
506:
505:
453:
450:
447:
446:
443:
442:
439:
438:
431:Low-importance
427:
421:
420:
418:
383:
371:
370:
368:Low‑importance
362:
350:
349:
346:
345:
343:
316:
304:
303:
291:
279:
278:
275:
274:
272:
238:
237:
221:
209:
208:
203:
191:
190:
187:
186:
179:Low-importance
175:
169:
168:
166:
149:the discussion
136:
135:
119:
107:
106:
104:Low‑importance
98:
86:
85:
79:
68:
54:
53:
49:this help page
33:poorly sourced
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2173:
2162:
2159:
2157:
2154:
2152:
2149:
2147:
2144:
2142:
2139:
2137:
2134:
2132:
2129:
2127:
2124:
2122:
2119:
2118:
2116:
2109:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2091:
2087:
2086:
2082:
2081:Tilda Swinton
2079:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2044:
2040:
2037:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2025:
2024:
2020:
2017:
2016:
2012:
2011:Brenda Howard
2008:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1907:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1874:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1856:
1854:
1850:
1849:
1843:
1840:
1835:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1817:
1815:
1812:and probably
1811:
1806:
1801:
1800:BLP violation
1796:
1795:
1793:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1780:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1652:
1651:80.242.41.176
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1584:
1583:
1581:
1579:
1575:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:80.242.41.176
1542:
1536:
1531:
1524:
1522:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1479:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1455:
1450:
1445:
1439:
1433:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1390:
1388:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1345:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1321:
1316:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1280:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1262:
1258:
1256:
1248:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:Warren Buffet
1096:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
986:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
964:living people
961:
957:
954:
950:
942:
931:
928:
925:
922:
916:
913:
901:
895:
892:
888:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
865:
864:
858:
855:
852:
848:
844:
840:
837:
833:
830:
829:
828:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
804:
802:
801:
797:
793:
787:
785:
781:
777:
773:
763:
761:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:Etty Hillesum
732:
727:
725:
721:
717:
716:82.113.121.16
712:
711:
707:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
675:
667:
664:
657:
653:
652:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:
637:
636:
633:
626:
622:
614:
612:
611:
608:
603:
601:
597:
593:
588:
584:
574:
571:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
552:
549:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
535:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
511:
509:
504:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
478:
475:
473:
469:
465:
464:98.211.71.137
461:
451:
436:
432:
426:
423:
422:
419:
415:List articles
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:
384:
381:
377:
376:
372:
366:
363:
360:
356:
344:
327:
326:
321:
317:
314:
310:
309:
305:
300:
295:
292:
289:
285:
273:
256:
255:documentation
252:
248:
244:
243:
235:
224:
222:
219:
215:
214:
210:
207:
204:
201:
197:
184:
180:
174:
171:
170:
167:
150:
146:
142:
141:
133:
127:
122:
120:
117:
113:
112:
108:
102:
99:
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
69:
60:
59:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
26:
25:
20:
18:
17:
2095:
2090:Celeste West
2067:
2066:
2030:
1983:
1975:Janet Farrar
1959:
1936:
1903:
1898:non-monogamy
1877:
1867:
1863:
1846:
1824:
1813:
1809:
1799:
1784:
1757:
1754:polyfidelity
1753:
1749:
1741:
1724:
1615:
1577:
1573:
1571:
1564:
1539:— Preceding
1534:
1532:
1528:
1506:
1503:
1478:source check
1457:
1451:
1448:
1397:
1394:
1372:
1369:
1344:source check
1323:
1317:
1314:
1287:
1284:
1263:
1259:
1254:
1252:
1223:
1221:
1198:
1194:
1180:Cooltobekind
1176:
1154:
1150:
1136:Cooltobekind
1132:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1081:
1060:
1052:
1038:Cooltobekind
1034:
1017:
1002:
991:Cooltobekind
987:
967:
955:
946:
930:
915:
904:. Retrieved
894:
886:
862:
836:Neal Cassady
832:Jack Kerouac
826:
815:Cooltobekind
808:
792:Cooltobekind
788:
770:— Preceding
767:
751:Cooltobekind
747:Arnold Zweig
739:Edith Nesbit
728:
713:
708:
705:
683:
672:
618:
604:
591:
589:
585:
581:
515:
507:
495:
479:
476:
455:
430:
397:project page
386:
323:
240:
178:
138:
82:WikiProjects
47:
35:
28:
22:
2099:Weeb Dingle
1966:Olive Byrne
1942:Weeb Dingle
1937:polyamorous
1922:Weeb Dingle
1763:Weeb Dingle
1604:Olive Byrne
1559:No. That's
1268:Weeb Dingle
1236:Andrewaskew
1095:can be sued
857:H. G. Wells
845:, admiral,
563:Looks like
546:critiqued.
519:Gloriamarie
458:—Preceding
2115:Categories
2039:Darrel Ray
1574:explicitly
1515:Report bug
1381:Report bug
924:0595008070
906:2011-12-21
887:References
642:Lord Balin
512:Citations?
401:discussion
72:List-class
1917:Polyamory
1894:polyandry
1839:polyamory
1810:synthesis
1750:polyamory
1682:Community
1498:this tool
1491:this tool
1438:dead link
1364:this tool
1357:this tool
1249:overreach
972:WP:BLPCAT
859:, author
680:WP:BLPCAT
548:AMProSoft
482:AMProSoft
452:additions
260:Biography
206:Biography
40:libellous
1984:weaselly
1913:ephemera
1890:polygamy
1886:marriage
1882:monogamy
1746:swingers
1586:Skyerise
1541:unsigned
1504:Cheers.—
1370:Cheers.—
1218:Removals
1091:research
956:actually
772:unsigned
726:(Joise)
460:unsigned
1442:tag to
1404:my edit
1294:my edit
660:Damiens
629:Damiens
433:on the
325:defunct
299:defunct
181:on the
1909:trivia
1906:fanboy
1853:Q.E.D.
1434:Added
1089:, not
1087:report
869:WP:BLP
849:, and
625:WP:BLP
607:Calair
592:should
570:Calair
534:Calair
500:Calair
78:scale.
1888:, as
1820:life.
1758:circa
1610:and,
1204:Yworo
1164:Yworo
1120:Yworo
1103:Yworo
1065:Yworo
1022:Yworo
976:Yworo
873:Yworo
841:Lord
688:Yworo
621:WP:RS
406:Lists
365:Lists
2103:talk
1946:talk
1926:talk
1911:and
1884:and
1848:DADT
1767:talk
1633:talk
1590:talk
1549:talk
1272:talk
1240:talk
1234:. --
1226:and
1224:list
1208:talk
1195:then
1184:talk
1168:talk
1151:love
1140:talk
1124:talk
1107:talk
1082:need
1069:talk
1042:talk
1026:talk
995:talk
980:talk
921:ISBN
877:talk
819:talk
796:talk
780:talk
755:talk
720:talk
692:talk
678:Per
646:talk
623:and
492:here
468:talk
249:and
1977:is
1472:RfC
1428:to
1418:to
1338:RfC
1308:to
1257:.
1230:at
1155:all
737:+
662:.rf
631:.rf
496:now
425:Low
173:Low
29:BLP
2117::
2105:)
1948:)
1928:)
1855:.
1816:.
1794:.
1769:)
1692:,
1688:,
1684:,
1635:)
1606:,
1592:)
1551:)
1485:.
1480:}}
1476:{{
1440:}}
1436:{{
1351:.
1346:}}
1342:{{
1274:)
1242:)
1210:)
1186:)
1170:)
1142:)
1126:)
1109:)
1071:)
1044:)
1028:)
997:)
982:)
879:)
871:.
834:,
821:)
798:)
782:)
757:)
745:+
722:)
694:)
648:)
568:--
532:--
470:)
2101:(
1944:(
1924:(
1919:.
1900:.
1892:/
1870:.
1802:.
1765:(
1696:?
1631:(
1588:(
1580:.
1547:(
1517:)
1513:(
1500:.
1493:.
1383:)
1379:(
1366:.
1359:.
1270:(
1238:(
1206:(
1182:(
1166:(
1138:(
1122:(
1105:(
1067:(
1040:(
1024:(
993:(
978:(
909:.
875:(
817:(
794:(
778:(
753:(
718:(
690:(
644:(
466:(
437:.
403:.
328:.
301:)
297:(
257:.
185:.
84::
52:.
27:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
